Why are people suddenly worried about another Mormon in Washington???

Question

Mitt Romney is running for President, and it seems like THE issue is that he's LDS (aka a member of The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints).

In recent years there have been Mormons representing California, Utah, Arizona, Nevada,Oklahoma, Michigan, Massachusetts, Oregon, and New Mexico in Washington DC as senators or congressmen. They have also held numerous national positions. They've been liberal and conservative. Republican and Democrat.

So why are people suddenly up in arms about having a Mormon as President? We've had a Jehovah's Witness President....did he screw everything up? Have the Mormons in Washington now screwed everything up?

Mormonism is the 4th largest Christian denomination in the USA.

So.....why get all uppity NOW over a Mormon in DC???

Answer 1

I agree! I'm a Christian but I'd rather have Romney in than Clinton or any liberal!!

We need to be up in arms about positions on issues not on someone's religion.

Answer 2

because alot of the population believe that being a mormon is all about the negitive which is all they ever hear on the television, humans fear what they do not know. If they were better educated in some relationship to this they would better understand it and be able to understand just because he is mormon does not mean he is going push his ways and beliefs upon us. they need to get past that and look at the facts. there have been better world leaders and worse ones what is one mormon in the white house going to do its not going to turn us upon the age of another cival war. If he doesnt do what he should do/what he says he is going to than in 4 years vote for someone differant but im sure everyone has had someone give them a chance when they didnt have anything else so give the man a chance to prove just because he is mormon doesnt make him "evil"

Answer 3

His beliefs aren't "THE" issue. His flip-flopping policies are more the issue.

The flip-flop tendency, unfortunately, is a precedence that was set in the LDS church from its very beginnings, when Joseph Smith changed the 1838 Book of Mormon to remove Trinitarian concepts. During this same time, he flip-flopped back and forth on his teachings of polygamy. His first known support of the doctrine was in 1833, when his affair with Fanny Alger was discovered. He decided he'd rather be a polygamist than an adulterer, so he advocated the doctrine. Later, (when 80% of the church's population in Kirtland had left the church and he started anew in Missouri) he called polygamy "a filthy practice", and said that no just God would ever allow, let alone demand it, from his people. Later, when he founded Nauvoo, he switched it up again and started taking polygamous teenage brides (as well as women in their 20s, 30s, and 40s), protecting the practice with the "in-circle" of the Council of Fifty, all the while teaching against the doctrine in public. To the day he died, he never gave a public advocacy of the principle. All he had was the infamous 1843 'revelation' that he conveniently never told the Church about, but kept to himself, Hyrum, and some of the apostles. Naturally, in 1853, when Brigham Young felt they were far enough separated from outside criticism, he canonized the revelation and got started on his 57+ wives.

Answer 4

Well spoken!!! If people would focus on the issues, not on religion, race or gender, our government would be a lot better. It shouldn't matter that one of the candidates is a certain religion. I do support Romney. I think he would be an excellent president. Not because he is LDS, OK not totally because he is LDS, because that does play a small part, but because of his values, what he has done already, and his track record. Check it out and then try to tell me that his religion would be forced on everyone, or the church would interfere. Whatever!!! I think it would do our country a lot of good to get someone in there that cares about what people think, and who cares about the state of the nation, not just publicity.

Answer 5

Honestly, "we" haven't had a President who was an active Witness. We Jehovah's Witnesses stay neutral in political matters.

As for people having problems with someone being a certain faith often it seems to be based on misunderstandings with the beliefs of these people.

Answer 6

It's because of "The Godmakers", and Ed Decker. He has much of the non-LDS Christians (those who listen to him, anyway) thinking that the LDS General Authorities want to take over the USA and what better way than to put one of their Mormon puppets in the Oval Office. Did you know that there is supposedly a replica of the Oval Office in either/both of the Salt Lake and Washington D.C. temples?

Answer 7

Eisenhower was baptized, confirmed, and became a communicant in the Presbyterian church rather then becoming a Jehovah's Witness like his parents.

Answer 8

People got worked up about Kennedy being Roman Catholic. We also have all the talk now about if we're ready for a woman or a black President. Anything that isn't the same as everything we've had before will get met with fear and suspicion by some people.

Answer 9

I personally dont care what religion a president is. If they're capable and get elected they can be a PresbaCathoBaptutheran as long as they get the job done.

Answer 10

My objection to Mitt Romney has nothing to do with his religion. Whatever cult he follows is besides the point. I am from Massachusetts so I've seen first hand exactly what he stands for (or doesn't stand for depending on who he is talking to). I personally don't like his lack of ethics, his grandstanding, his dishonesty. He is a bit too sleezy for my tastes, but given the current Republican party, I expect him to fit right in. Republicans tend to go for the dishonest type.